At this
time, the Court must review the Complaint, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether it should be
dismissed as frivolous or malicious, for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted, or because it seeks
monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief. For the reasons set forth below, it is clear from the
Complaint that the claim arose more than two years before the
Complaint was filed. It is therefore barred by the two-year
statute of limitations that governs claims of
unconstitutional conduct under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The
Court will therefore dismiss the Complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii).

II.
BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
alleges that she “was housed in the women[‘s]
block and was giv[en] a thin mat to sleep on hard conc[r]ete
floor” in “2001 [and] 2013.” Complaint
§§ III(B)-(C). Plaintiff claims to have suffered
“back pain” in connection with these events
(id. § IV) and seeks “compensat[ion] for
my pain & suffering.” Id. § V.

III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW

Section
1915(e)(2) requires a court to review complaints prior to
service of the summons and complaint in cases in which a
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The Court
must sua sponte dismiss any claim that is frivolous,
is malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. This action is subject to sua
sponte screening for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B) because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis.

The
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff experienced unconstitutional
conditions of confinement while incarcerated in 2001 and
2013. Complaint §§ III(B)-(C). Civil rights claims
under § 1983 are governed by New Jersey's
limitations period for personal injury and must be brought
within two years of the claim's accrual. See Wilson
v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985); Dique v. New
Jersey State Police, 603 F.3d 181, 185 (3d Cir. 2010).
“Under federal law, a cause of action accrues
‘when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the
injury upon which the action is based.'”
Montanez v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr., 773
F.3d 472, 480 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Kach v. Hose,
589 F.3d 626, 634 (3d Cir. 2009)).

The
allegedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement, namely
the alleged overcrowding and sleeping conditions in cells,
would have been immediately apparent to Plaintiff at the time
of detention; therefore, the statute of limitations for
Plaintiff's claims expired in 2015 at the latest, well
before this Complaint was filed in 2016. Plaintiff has filed
her lawsuit too late. Although the Court may toll, or extend,
the statute of limitations in the interests of justice,
certain circumstances must be present before it can do so.
Tolling is not warranted in this case because the state has
not “actively misled” Plaintiff as to the
existence of her cause of action, there are no extraordinary
circumstances that prevented Plaintiff from filing her claim,
and there is nothing to indicate Plaintiff filed her claim on
time but in the wrong forum. See Omar v. Blackman,
590 F. App'x 162, 166 (3d Cir. 2014).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;As it
is clear from the face of the Complaint that more than two
years have passed since Plaintiff&#39;s claims accrued, the
Complaint is dismissed with prejudice, meaning she may not
file an amended complaint concerning the events of 2001 and
2013. Ostuni v. Wa Wa&#39;s Mart, 532 F. App'x
110, 112 (3d Cir. 2013) ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.